Professor Richardson gives the issue:
“I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S. Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act,’” lawyer Marc Elias, whose firm defends democratic election laws, wrote today on social media. He added: “I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”
Elias was referring to the argument of Trump’s lawyer before the Supreme Court today that it could indeed be an “official act” for which a president should be immune from criminal prosecution if “the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him.”
The Supreme Court today heard close to three hours of oral argument over Trump v. United States, which concerns former president Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal charges for “official acts”: in this case, his attempt to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election and to stay in office against the will of the voters.
And the disappointing part? There are two answers, either will be correct:
- The case of Trump vs. United States should have been silently rejected by SCOTUS, leaving Trump with yet another legal failing.
- SCOTUS should have let Trump’s lawyers present their cases, and then chuckled, roared with laughter, and then told Trump’s lawyers, and Trump himself, to get lost.
And I’m not kidding. Pompous, self-important, self-aggrandizing, arrogant asses are best treated with laughter, as bad stand up comedians undeserving of serious consideration. Societal rejection, as lead by SCOTUS, is effective in discrediting fools like Trump, his allies, and his supporters. Supporters will continue to leak away as, well, the scales fall from their eyes; a lower percentage of allies will also leave him.
Some positions are simply not worthy of even minimal respect.
